[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7d6d959d-3767-1a12-4c80-e7d52a48c396@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 16:03:28 +0000
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@...bug.net>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] sched/uclamp: Make uclamp_util_*() helpers use and
return UL values
On 04/12/2019 15:22, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> @@ -2303,15 +2303,15 @@ static inline void cpufreq_update_util(struct rq *rq, unsigned int flags) {}
>> unsigned int uclamp_eff_value(struct task_struct *p, enum uclamp_id clamp_id);
>
> Why not changing uclamp_eff_value to return unsigned long too ? The
> returned value represents a utilization to be compared with other
> utilization value
>
IMO uclamp_eff_value() is a simple accessor to uclamp_se.value
(unsigned int), which is why I didn't want to change its return type.
I see it as being the task equivalent of rq->uclamp[clamp_id].value, IOW
"give me the uclamp value for that clamp index". It just happens to be a
bit more intricate for tasks than for rqs.
uclamp_util() & uclamp_util_with() do explicitly return a utilization,
so here it makes sense (in my mind, that is) to return UL.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists